Still Mind vs. Gibbering Mouther

[dcollins]

And actually it's even worse than that. It's more like arguing this:

Player A: Hey, there's an Evoker.
Player B: I wonder what class he is.
Player A: Obviously a wizard.
Player B: Maybe not, show me the place in the book where it says "No cleric can be a specialist caster". You can't, so it must be a possibilty under the rules. You have no idea what character class that Evoker is.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

And actually it's even worse than that. It's more like arguing this:

Player A: Hey, there's an Evoker.
Player B: I wonder what class he is.
Player A: Obviously a wizard.
Player B: Maybe not, show me the place in the book where it says "No cleric can be a specialist caster". You can't, so it must be a possibilty under the rules. You have no idea what character class that Evoker is.

There is no "specialist caster." There are only specialist wizards. An Evoker is a specialist wizard. Certainly a specialist wizard will have levels in wizard. I'm not arguing your nonsensical scenario at all.

There also isn't any rule against a 1st level paladin having a holy avenger, +5 heavy fortification full plate, a helm of brilliance, and the Talisman of the Sphere.

Could you not muddy the discussion with pointless, silly, and more importantly unconnected, situations?

My position is fairly simple. Just because all known Compulsion spells are Enchantment spells, it does not follow that all Compulsion effects are Enchantment effects. Even if we assume, as some have argued, all (Compulsion) spells must be Enchantment spells, it does not follow that all Compulsion effects must be Enchantment effects.

If the Gibbering Mouther's ability were an Enchantment effect, it would have been tagged as such.

 

[Felix]

There is no "specialist caster." There are only specialist wizards.

Right; dcollins point is that the Core books never explicitly say "Clerics can't be specialists". The books say "wizards can be specialists", and that is similar to the "doesn't say you can't" argument.

Could you not muddy the discussion with pointless, silly, and more importantly unconnected, situations?

My apologies then. It is just an example of what the rules don't say you can't do; similar to your saying the rules don't clearly state a Necromancy (Calling) spell couldn't be created. With that argument, the waters must get muddy because if you allow that argument to stand, then anything not explicitly prohibited by the rules would then be allowed. I'm trying to avoid muddy water by showing just how muddy they will get with that logic.

Just because all known Compulsion spells are Enchantment spells, it does not follow that all Compulsion effects are Enchantment effects.

Pizza Hut is a subsidiary of Pepsico.

All products created by Pizza Hut are Pizza Hut products.

Does it not follow that all Pizza Hut products are also simultaneously Pepsico products?

And that the fact that they are Pepsico products is not diminished with the lack of a Pepsico sign on the product?

 

[dcollins]

There is no "specialist caster." There are only specialist wizards. An Evoker is a specialist wizard. Certainly a specialist wizard will have levels in wizard. I'm not arguing your nonsensical scenario at all. Could you not muddy the discussion with pointless, silly, and more importantly unconnected, situations?

There is no "general subschool". There are only subschools of specific schools. A Compulsion is a subschool of Enchantment. Certainly a Compulsion will be an Enchantment. I'm not arguing your nonsensical scenario at all. Could you not muddy the discussion with pointless, silly, and more importantly unconnected, situations?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Pizza Hut is a subsidiary of Pepsico.

All products created by Pizza Hut are Pizza Hut products.

Does it not follow that all Pizza Hut products are also simultaneously Pepsico products?

And that the fact that they are Pepsico products is not diminished with the lack of a Pepsico sign on the product?

Let me try and play the analogy game myself, and see if I can illustrate my thinking on this.

You currently have some cubes and some spheres. Some of those cubes are white. You currently don't have any white spheres. Does it follow that white spheres cannot exist?

Basically, it comes down to whether or not Compulsion is exclusive to Enchantment. I see no reason to assume so, although clearly many people in this thread do.

 

[cordell]

The only "proof" that all effects of the Compulsion subschool are part of the Enchantment school is not in the rulebooks, because it's in the English language. Ok, go to dictionary.com and type in "Sub-". Here are some possibilities:

A) Informal, see "submarine".
B) a large sandwich made of a long crusty roll split lengthwise and filled with meats and cheese
C) Subordinate portion of : subdivision of <subchapter> <subcommittee>

Now, granted, I have cherry-picked only a few of the possibilities. However, if you read over ALL the defintions, the only one which makes any sense is akin to my option C, above.

Compulsion is sub-school of Enchantment, meaning that it is a subordinate portion of the school of Enchantment. Things which are subdivisions or subordinate portions of one thing cannot also be subdivisions or subordinate portions of another thing. At least, not while speaking English. Simply speaking, a "subschool" is a subdivision of a "school". There are many subschools and many schools, but as soon as you *name* the subschool as part of a school, it can only be a part of that *particular* school.

Sure, it doesn't say that anywhere in the rules. However, it also doesn't say that the word "the" always refers to a definite noun and the word "a/an" refers to an indefinite noun, but the writers have to assume that you know English - and in English, "the" is always definite article and "a/an" is always an indefinite article.

 

[Felix]

You currently have some cubes and some spheres. Some of those cubes are white. You currently don't have any white spheres. Does it follow that white spheres cannot exist?

Except that this analogy misses the dictionarial point cordell makes above. For your questoin, no, it does not follow that spheres cannot be white because "white" is not a subset of "sphere". (Compulsion) on the other hand is a subset of Enchantment, so the analogy doesn't wash.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. There will never be a square that is a circle.

If nothing so far has convinced you, I don't really think there's anything else I can say to make it any more clear that Enchantment has an exclusive right to (Compulsion) spells; so I'll leave you to your home-brewed Necromancy (Calling) spells. Later.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Except that this analogy misses the dictionarial point cordell makes above. For your questoin, no, it does not follow that spheres cannot be white because "white" is not a subset of "sphere". (Compulsion) on the other hand is a subset of Enchantment, so the analogy doesn't wash.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. There will never be a square that is a circle.

I would agree with this, if schools of magic were mutually exclusive as they stand now. But they aren't. Many spells could easily be reclassified into several schools, because the schools do not have mutually exclusive characteristics. If a school's characteristics are not unique among other schools, then, how can one declare that a sub-school of that school is?

If nothing so far has convinced you, I don't really think there's anything else I can say to make it any more clear that Enchantment has an exclusive right to (Compulsion) spells; so I'll leave you to your home-brewed Necromancy (Calling) spells. Later.

No, I rather think I'll leave you to your home-brew. Later.

 

[Tarril Wolfeye]

I would agree with this, if schools of magic were mutually exclusive as they stand now. But they aren't. Many spells could easily be reclassified into several schools, because the schools do not have mutually exclusive characteristics. If a school's characteristics are not unique among other schools, then, how can one declare that a sub-school of that school is?

But schools of magic are mutually exclusive. Contrary to earlier editions, each spell belongs to just one school of magic. And what you are arguing is that a subschool is exactly like a descriptor, which obviously is not true. The only difference between suschools and descriptors is exactly that: subschool don't cross school boundaries. If it weren't so, all subschools would just be descriptors.

 

[Felix]

No, I rather think I'll leave you to your home-brew. Later.

Just thought I'd pop on in and invite you over to tea... and to see whose rule-fu is stronger!

And I like my home brew, thank you.

When I do it, that is.